https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #14 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 45425 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45425&action=edit Patch Hi, In the attached patch, I cache results of malloc_candidate_p_1 and avoid traversing "back edges". Does it look OK ? One issue was with creation of hash_table: hash_table<mc_map_elem_t> *mc_cache = new hash_table<mc_map_elem_t> (100); Using num_ssa_names instead of 100 resulted in allocation failure (and ICE) for spinning-smaller.ii. Is using a smaller number like 100 OK correctness wise ? I think Richard's patch in comment 13 is a better approach, since returning false should indeed propagate quickly. Testing that patch. Thanks, Prathamesh
